Poll proves why judges need freedom
The manner in which a people votes is one of those things that either defines the
democracy they enjoy or testifies to its absence. Long before any of the ballots had been
counted in the Metn by-election Sunday, the actions and utterings of some of the
country’s most senior leaders had only confirmed the fears of many that Lebanon
remains in fact a banana republic. In doing so, they provided irrefutable evidence (as
though any more were required) that the continuing absence of an independent judiciary
poses a serious threat to political stability.
As this editorial was being written, it was still not known who would win the race to fill
the Orthodox seat left vacant by the late Albert Mokheiber: All that is certain on this
score is that the fallen icon would have been nauseated by the process employed to replace
him. Similarly, although Justice Minister Samir Jisr is to be applauded for pointing out
the obvious fact that “secrecy is basic” to an election, there is not much to be
gained now by arguing for or against the necessity of voting behind a curtain: All that
matters in this regard is that together, three of the most powerful men in the country
provided a prime example of why courts have to be free of outside influence in order to do
their job.
The worst aspect of this embarrassing affair was that it erupted at the last minute. This
is getting to become a habit in a country where each election is contested under a new set
of rules, but that is anything but an excuse. Democracies are about institutions and
procedures whose methods for deciding political competitions form the glue that holds
effective polities together. At every step of such processes, there are right ways and
wrong ways for the citizen to exercise a right or carry out a responsibility. When the
correct form for such a procedure has been left vague by the courts, the last thing the
voter needs is an admonition from politicians (especially those who already hold public
office and are closely related to one of the candidates) to discard one of the elemental
protections afforded to voters wherever free ballots are cast: secrecy.
Again, it is not important for The Daily Star to take sides on this issue. It is crucial,
however, that the judiciary be allowed to do so once and for all and without influence
from any office, no matter how high. The credibility of the Cabinet is very much at stake,
as is that of the presidency. More importantly, however, the manner in which they choose
to deal with this debacle will have a major impact on the reputation of the republic
itself.
How can anyone take seriously the airing of grandiose privatization plans and calls for
administrative reform when the judiciary is not even empowered to rule independently on an
issue so fundamental to the development of genuine democracy? Under different
circumstances, the ugly debate over the voting curtain might have provoked violent
clashes, and all because some of the beneficiaries of the status quo lack even a
child’s understanding of how free systems are supposed to function. In a country
still trying to shake off the image forged by 15 years of civil war, some of our leaders
seem determined to ensure that no matter which way one peels it, the contents will keeping
looking, smelling and tasting like the same old banana.
Copyright © The Daily Star |
